This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Clarifying

Originally Posted by southwest88

an offspring of a human couple can only be a human. - Yah, the underlying template may have started out human. But I gave you the examples of fetuses affected by Thalidomide, by other drugs (opiates, usually), excessive alcohol. & bear in mind that in these cases, you only see the relatively mild outcomes - the seriously impacted fetuses typically die in utero, or were delivered dead. It's like someone who dies of cancer - cancer is apparently an unregulated growth issue - & you can ask the same question: Is the resulting cancer mass human? I tend to think not, because it kills the host, & therefore whatever agenda cancer may have, it's not to facilitate the life or health of the host.

All people die - Here, I'll go you orders of magnitude better: TMK, everything dies. Individuals, families, worlds, solar systems, galaxies, the universe (we think - there's still some discussion about whether the universe cycles endlessly, or not). Anything that does not die, we provisionally call God, or @ least a saint (possibly an angel, it's not really my field) - & of course, other religions have other categories. & Christianity typically considers the soul to be immortal, so that's our link to the eternal.

Here's my take on it:

Originally Posted by Lursa

They do this very commonly, the pro-life people.

When they realize that their religious beliefs (for most) are not legally binding or persuasive, they look for something concrete on which to make a "solid" argument...so they look to science.

They believe that science decides it all...human DNA. And yet, science is completely objective, it applies no value, does not take individuals or society into consideration. Value and morals are subjective.

So the science aspect has nothing to do with ethics or morality...those are applied *subjectively*.

In other words, 'science' is the only solid thing they think they can grasp in the argument...yet it's not. Morals, values, laws are based on subjective and objective criteria and are themselves *subjective.* They want a black and white means to end abortion...and it's not possible.

Originally Posted by eohrnberger

What does 'equality for women' have to do with abortion?

Originally Posted by DarkWizard12

Men gave you the right to be literate, and you fail at that even.

Originally Posted by gulfman

All I need to know when I vote is that the candidate has an r after their name.

Originally Posted by applejuicefool

A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

Re: Argument in favor of pro-choice/abortion

Originally Posted by tosca1

The fetus is a person at the time of conception!

No, it is not. That is FACT.

How weird is that you're willing to grant personhood - in other words, you're going to categorize a
non-human as human, and yet you're saying the offspring of a human couple can only be deemed human
at a certain point?

Why are you lying about him? He did not say it's not human before a certain point. He said it's not a person.

Re: Argument in favor of pro-choice/abortion

Its hilarious you think dishonesty like this will work and trying to change the lies you got caught posting already. LMAO

Originally Posted by tosca1

The fetus is a person at the time of conception!

Again why post so many lies?
in the future maybe actually know about a subject before posting about it. That way your posts wont be exposed for how monumentally uneducated they are on a certain topic and multiple posters wont completely kick the **** out of them for all to see. You're welcome

Originally Posted by celticwar17

I think there is an argument that racist black people outnumber racist white people.

Originally Posted by Hicup

homosexuality is objectively wrong, but because science tells me it is, not politics.

All the world's a stage ...

Originally Posted by tosca1

A person is a human. And, vice versa. That's a fact.

You'd best not go to the US Supreme Court to make that argument. Person in law is a carefully defined category, & the fetus (in Roe v. Wade) doesn't qualify as a person in the legal sense until it's born.

You're entitled to your personal opinion, of course. But when you present to the Supreme Court, they're not noted for patience. They expect whoever comes before them to argue a case to be competent, & to understand law & legal terminology. If you don't meet the criteria, you'd likely get very short shrift from the court.

Re: Argument in favor of pro-choice/abortion

Originally Posted by PoppyCock

You made a false claim. Stand your ground laws do NOT allow you to shoot someone just for stepping on your land. Almost everyone knows this...

Yes, they do actually. Maybe not in broad daylight if some kids ball rolls into your yard, but if there's any doubt whatsoever that you were legitimately scared for any reason you can and will get away with it. There are countless examples of overzealous husbands and fathers accidentally shooting their wives or children because they thought it was someone breaking into their home. Then men are almost never charged with anything.

Obstruction of Justice also applies to overt coercion of court or government officials via the means of threats or actual physical harm and also applying to deliberate sedition against a court official to undermine the appearance of legitimate authority.